In what is about as surprising as the sun rising in the morning, Michael Dell has started talking down netbooks. Dell made his comments about netbooks at the Churchill Club in Silicon Valley, and considering the impact of netbooks on manufacturers' bottom lines, it's really not that surprising.

now that a growing number of people have (English people, please start using grammatical number to define the number of the verb, darn it!)

I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here. Were you wanting them to give you a specific figure on the number of netbook users? The phrase "a growing number of people" is fairly common in English, and pretty self-evident: the number of people using netbooks is growing. Am I missing something here?

On a side note, I don't think he is completely blowing smoke here. I have known more than one person who loved their new netbook the day they got it, and then returned it a week later to get a "real" laptop. Now, I'm sure that profit does come in to plya for Mr. Dell, but that doesn't mean his point isn't valid.

This is a linguistic issue I was touching upon, as an attempt at humour.

In Dutch, we look at the grammatical number of a noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb. In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb.

"A number of people" is grammatically singular, and as such, we Dutch treat it as such. We would say: "a number of people is". In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun, and because of that, English people say "a number of people are".

Which, as a true holier-than-thou Dutchman, is something I find an epic cop-out.

Actually British English and American English differ on this point, though I think the phrase you are picking on is a bad example of the phenomenon.

Brits stick to the meaning, not the word. For example, they would say 'British Telecom are developing a new service.' As 'British Telecom' does not mean a singular person, it's an organization of people, so therefore it's plural, thus the plural verb.

Americans on the other hand say 'British Telecom is developing a new service' - as the word itself represents a singular entity - the corporation British Telecom.

As for this example I'd guess Brits and Americans would actually be on the same page - as 'number of people' is the subject, the Brits will look at the meaning and say plural, the Americans, perhaps a bit inconsistently, will also see it as plural because it's a phrase which clearly spells out more than one person - it's a bit different than 'British Telecom' in that respect.

This is a linguistic issue I was touching upon, as an attempt at humour.

In Dutch, we look at the grammatical number of a noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb. In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb.

"A number of people" is grammatically singular, and as such, we Dutch treat it as such. We would say: "a number of people is". In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun, and because of that, English people say "a number of people are".

Which, as a true holier-than-thou Dutchman, is something I find an epic cop-out.

Brits stick to the meaning, not the word. For example, they would say 'British Telecom are developing a new service.' As 'British Telecom' does not mean a singular person, it's an organization of people, so therefore it's plural, thus the plural verb.

Americans on the other hand say 'British Telecom is developing a new service' - as the word itself represents a singular entity - the corporation British Telecom.

Or are we both sticking to our own perceived meaning"? Are we Americans more taken in by the fiction that a corporation is really a "person" than are the British? I'm not claiming that we are or aren't. But it would not surprise me in the least.

Or are we both sticking to our own perceived meaning"? Are we Americans more taken in by the fiction that a corporation is really a "person" than are the British?

We do the same thing with "team" (My team is the best vs my team are the best). Hard to spin that into a tinfoilhat reflection on the state of things in our society. We just treat mass nouns differently from the Brits (typically, not as an ironclad rule, see below)

Actually I have a counter example. The LA Lakers are playing the NY Knicks tonight.

Lakers. That S on the end means plural. "The 5 starting Lakers are" etc, as it should be. And your Manchester U example is not typical of British English. Google returns more results for "Manchester United are" than "Manchester United is"

I think English is just one of the most inconsistent languages with respect to rules. My favourite example are in pronunciation.

This happens when the language takes in words from many different sources. It's a Germanic language with a large amount of French vocabulary thanks to the Normans, with Viking influences and borrowings from all over the place thanks to the British Empire among other things. You're not wrong of course; the pronunciation is weird.

(what's with "pronunciation" and "to pronounce" btw. just got caught by this)

The Brits like to say (and spell) "pronounciate" since they, like you, feel it more logical. But I don't hear them saying "enounciation"; it's still "enunciation" like it always was.

At any rate, "Pronunciation" is derived from the Latin "pronuntiationem", so there is a history of the second syllable having just the U. It's "pronounce" gaining that second "o" that doesn't make sense.

Sorry I'm German so I guess I'm biased, reading a word in German, you always know how to pronounce it.

Oh sure you do. If you know the rules. "ch" is pronounced differently in "ich" and "auch" for example. You have to know when to roll an "r" (or treat it as a voiced "h") and when to basically pretend it isn't there (drei vs Mutter). But yeah, if you know the rules it's a lot more consistent than English

@Thom: Regarding "a number of people" though, it's pretty much a synonym for "many people". It's referring to people in the plural, and I'm fine with treating it as a plural

"Sorry I'm German so I guess I'm biased, reading a word in German, you always know how to pronounce it.

Oh sure you do. If you know the rules. "ch" is pronounced differently in "ich" and "auch" for example. You have to know when to roll an "r" (or treat it as a voiced "h") and when to basically pretend it isn't there (drei vs Mutter). But yeah, if you know the rules it's a lot more consistent than English
"

1. Your examples prove the opposite of your very point. You seem to be confunsing phonology with phonetics. Other examples would have been more convincing (but too exceptional to be taken seriously).
2. Even pretending to compare English to German spelling "consistency" is misleading and unfair.

"Sorry I'm German so I guess I'm biased, reading a word in German, you always know how to pronounce it.

Oh sure you do. If you know the rules. "ch" is pronounced differently in "ich" and "auch" for example. You have to know when to roll an "r" (or treat it as a voiced "h") and when to basically pretend it isn't there (drei vs Mutter). But yeah, if you know the rules it's a lot more consistent than English
"
1. Your examples almost prove/strengthen the opposite of your point. (That said, the excuse seems to be that you're confusing phonology with phonetics. Other examples would have been more convincing, albeit yet more exceptional, i.e. mere nitpicking.)

2. Even vaguely pretending to compare German to English spelling "consistency" is misleading stylistic device. I.e. some understatements are downright lies just because of the context one sneaks them in.

Nothing personal, it's just that too many deniers like to imply that every language has its own relevant-to-mention spelling/etc. problems based merely on blindly extrapolating some holistic homeostatic principle. All languages are not equal.

Actually, American English isn't even consistent on this, and it seems to depend on the area in which you were exposed to it. For example, where I was raised in Pennsylvania, most people used the British form of your expression, i.e. we'd say something like "AT&T are going to open up Skype on the iPhone for 3g access," but not everyone said it like that and there seems to be no officially correct way to handle it. Further, it gets even more interesting as even the people that interpret the company as a single entity will still use the pronoun "they" when referring to it. So, if they were to say, "Apple is really draconian with their hardware lockouts,, it would still turn into "they are really draconian with their hardware lockouts." If you were to treat the company as a singular entity, the correct pronoun would naturally be "it" not "they." When contracted, however, the singular form is always used, or very nearly so. Confused yet? Not surprising though, we Americans aren't consistent with anything except coming up with stupid laws and making asses of ourselves.

Actually using "it" for a corporation or other collective entity is normal as well, though perhaps not as frequently used as 'they'. For example "Apple has had a breakout year with several new products contributing to strong revenue growth, if this continues, it is poised for explosive growth next year." But "they are" could definitely replace "it is" and actually "sounds" a bit more natural to me.

The use of "they" is more a sign of laziness than anything else - American's love "they" as the ultimate generic pronoun. But they can't bring themselves to say "they is" to force agreement.

I think the general rule is that Americans will attempt to interpret something as singular unless forced to do otherwise. If the noun or proper name at all hides the collective nature of the entity in question, we'll refer to it in the singular - "a number of people" pretty blatantly fails to hide the fact that it refers to more than one person, and thus gets the plural treatment.

Actually, American English isn't even consistent on this, and it seems to depend on the area in which you were exposed to it. For example, where I was raised in Pennsylvania, most people used the British form of your expression, i.e. we'd say something like "AT&T are going to open up Skype on the iPhone for 3g access," but not everyone said it like that and there seems to be no officially correct way to handle it. Further, it gets even more interesting as even the people that interpret the company as a single entity will still use the pronoun "they" when referring to it. So, if they were to say, "Apple is really draconian with their hardware lockouts,, it would still turn into "they are really draconian with their hardware lockouts." If you were to treat the company as a singular entity, the correct pronoun would naturally be "it" not "they." When contracted, however, the singular form is always used, or very nearly so. Confused yet? Not surprising though, we Americans aren't consistent with anything except coming up with stupid laws and making asses of ourselves.

Actually British English and American English differ on this point, though I think the phrase you are picking on is a bad example of the phenomenon.

Brits stick to the meaning, not the word. For example, they would say 'British Telecom are developing a new service.' As 'British Telecom' does not mean a singular person, it's an organization of people, so therefore it's plural, thus the plural verb.

Americans on the other hand say 'British Telecom is developing a new service' - as the word itself represents a singular entity - the corporation British Telecom.

As for this example I'd guess Brits and Americans would actually be on the same page - as 'number of people' is the subject, the Brits will look at the meaning and say plural, the Americans, perhaps a bit inconsistently, will also see it as plural because it's a phrase which clearly spells out more than one person - it's a bit different than 'British Telecom' in that respect.

Actually I have a counter example. The LA Lakers are playing the NY Knicks tonight. Manchester United is playing Celtic Glasgow.

I think English is just one of the most inconsistent languages with respect to rules. My favourite example are in pronunciation. If you read a word you never know how to pronounce it (what's with "pronunciation" and "to pronounce" btw. just got caught by this), like Kansas and Arkansas (WTF??).

Sorry I'm German so I guess I'm biased, reading a word in German, you always know how to pronounce it. (Don't get me started on German grammar though

Well this goes with my theory, if a collective noun or proper name somehow manages to hide it's plural-ness, it's treated as singular, but if it is obviously plural "Lakers", then we are forced to use the plural.

This is a linguistic issue I was touching upon, as an attempt at humour.

In Dutch, we look at the grammatical number of a noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb. In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb.

"A number of people" is grammatically singular, and as such, we Dutch treat it as such. We would say: "a number of people is". In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun, and because of that, English people say "a number of people are".

Which, as a true holier-than-thou Dutchman, is something I find an epic cop-out.

That's "number" in your sentence is the plural form of the word you just can't tell from the spelling! (can you blame Anglos, Saxons, or Latins for that?)

It's the same way for "deer". "A deer ran in front of my car." or it can be: "There are deer in my garden."

"This is a linguistic issue I was touching upon, as an attempt at humour.

In Dutch, we look at the grammatical number of a noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb. In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb.

"A number of people" is grammatically singular, and as such, we Dutch treat it as such. We would say: "a number of people is". In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun, and because of that, English people say "a number of people are".

Which, as a true holier-than-thou Dutchman, is something I find an epic cop-out.

That's "number" in your sentence is the plural form of the word you just can't tell from the spelling! (can you blame Anglos, Saxons, or Latins for that?)

It's the same way for "deer". "A deer ran in front of my car." or it can be: "There are deer in my garden."

This is a linguistic issue I was touching upon, as an attempt at humour.

In Dutch, we look at the grammatical number of a noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb. In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun to infer the grammatical number of the verb.

"A number of people" is grammatically singular, and as such, we Dutch treat it as such. We would say: "a number of people is". In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun, and because of that, English people say "a number of people are".

Which, as a true holier-than-thou Dutchman, is something I find an epic cop-out.

For some reason your post reminds me of Life of Brian when Brian is attempting to graffiti the wall and the Roman soldier corrects him on his Latin grammar

I think you got confused by the word people not having an "s" at the end, as plurals usually do. But even without the "s", people is a plural noun (like sheep ;-) ). It is equivalent to "a number of cars" (or "a number of persons" to get the meaning closer), that's why you use are and not is.

In fact, you could never use "a number of..." with a singular noun. THAT would be illogical and incorrect.

This is a linguistic issue I was touching upon, as an attempt at humour.

"A number of people" is grammatically singular, and as such, we Dutch treat it as such. We would say: "a number of people is". In English, however, one looks at the meaning of the noun, and because of that, English people say "a number of people are".

Spanish does something similar with the word "gente" (people). It is considered singular. But if a native speaker said or wrote that in English, it would seem like they were very uneducated. If English isn't the person's first language, it is a very forgivable error.

Even if I don't own one, I directly benefit from their existence. Without netbooks, it is likely that Windows 7 would've been even slower than Vista, instead of the other way around. I hope more apps (*cough* Adobe Reader *cough*) follow in Win7's footsteps and trim down the fat.

Dell's just stating the bleedin' obvious - a Netbook is a handy, secondary device - but one is no substitute for a larger screen unit. I have an Acer Aspire One (using it now) that I take with me to site so I can check email, answer calls as if at my desk (it has VoIP software installed), perform diagnostics and copy data to it. It also goes on holiday with me specifically because of its size, but I wouldn't want to work on it all day. At a pinch I'd have it as my main machine (the processor is powerful enough for most of what I do), but when at my desk I'd have to hook a monitor, mouse and keyboard to it.

As hinted, the other reason for Dell's whinge is that the profit margin on Netbooks is too darn low - hence the truly daft market push to make 'Netbooks' with 11-12" screens that actually cost more than some low-end laptops with better processors and 15" displays!

Oh, and the main reason I replied to your postt...forget the abomination that is Adobe Acrobat Reader and install Foxit Reader instead - no bloat and it'll be fine for the vast majority of PDF needs.

My old Compaq, never much used over the years, has not seen the light of day since I got a netbook. Actually, it got stuffed in the closet when I bought my first generation EEEPC, which was nice, but decidedly non-optimimal (800x480, cramped keyboard, slightly anemic processor), but still better than lugging around the Compaq.

Now that I have my HP Mini though... with 1024x600 resolution and a keyboard which actually feels spacious... I'd never go back. The HP Mini is *perfect*.

I have a full size laptop that is over 3 years old with a dying battery (holds about an hour of charge now) and a netbook that I bought about a year ago (Asus EEE 1000HA) wiht a 6 hour battery. I love both for what they each can do but while using either I envy the other all too frequently. If my larger laptop could have all of its features and still have the battery life of the netbook then I'd be very happy. I can buy a $100 battery for my netbook that will make it last roughly 10 hours... there is no portable battery on the planet that will make my big laptop run for 10 hours (unless I want to carry around a full size car battery, which isn't very portable :p ).

The next big die shrink should allow for MUCH faster and lower-power processors. They could start having dual, triple, or even quad core CPUs running under 1 watt (under load, of course). Screen size aside, this would make the netbook experience far more enjoyable.

The next big die shrink should allow for MUCH faster and lower-power processors. They could start having dual, triple, or even quad core CPUs running under 1 watt (under load, of course). Screen size aside, this would make the netbook experience far more enjoyable.

I don't think the netbook experience has much to do with performance - the scope of utility is already capped by form factor, to the extent that it doesn't matter much how well it's performing.

Which is probably what is irking Dell.

The performance issues I had with EEE 900 went away when I switched from Firefox to Chromium.

Die shrink or not, I'd be worried about heating issues with a more powerful CPU in a form factor such as a netbook. I saw a Fujitsu subnotebook once, the thing was about the size of a netbook but had a core duo in it. The thing got super hot, to the point where it was uncomfortable to hold, and didn't last long before the contained heat fried the motherboard. I don't know if x86 CPUs, aside from the low-energy kind such as the Atom, could ever be made to run cool enough at that power point to make something like a quad core netbook a possibility. ARM, on the other hand, is a completely different matter and given the design of those CPUs a quad core ARM netbook just might work.

I almost bought a dell netbook. I canceled the order when I received a notice that my dell mini 9 would be delayed a month, in addition to the month it was already delayed. I bought a Aspire One D150 off newegg and it arrived in 2 days.

My AAO is my main computer with my desktop only turning on once or twice a week. I'm commenting from it right now.

"My AAO is my main computer with my desktop only turning on once or twice a week. I'm commenting from it right now.

Which is fine, if all you do is comment on websites and send email. Try running Eclipse and doing some Java work on that thing, or setup VirtualBox. Yay. "
Yup... Even the default laptop resolution is not enough for programming. I brought my dell laptop with a 920p resolution.

My Harbrace Handbook (probably the most prevalent college grammar/style writing guide in the US) mentions your example almost exactly in section 6a:

The number is very small. (Group as a whole, singular.)

A number were absent. (Individual items in the collection, plural.)

Since it is the individuals in this case shunning the netbooks, I'd lean toward the plural ("...a growing number have...").

OK, on to netbooks. I knew up front I didn't want one. 1024x600 is just not enough screen for me for daily use, and reading that the 1366x768 models stuttered on Flash video sealed my decision. If I want something with a screen that small I'll get a smartphone; at least I'll always have it with me.

Yet I no longer want to spend the $1500-2000 on a laptop that I have in the past. They just don't last, likely because of the inadequate cooling. All my desktops still worked when I retired them, usually due to inadequate hardware or BIOS support of some new tech I wanted to use. In contrast, both my old laptops are dead. The Dell Inspiron 8100 made it about 5.5 years (it still boots but the display thins to a single line when graphic mode is enabled). The other, a Dell e1705, just got a new motherboard under warranty after about 2.5 years.

So I'm kinda looking at some of those new Intel CULV machines -- a couple hundred more than a netbook, more horsepower, almost as good battery life, bigger/higher res screen, and not too much money. I'll use the desktop for anything heavy-duty.

If Michael Dell wants us to continue to pony up good cash for a notebook, he is going to have to have his Taiwanese contractor design and build them better.

"So I'm kinda looking at some of those new Intel CULV machines -- a couple hundred more than a netbook, more horsepower, almost as good battery life, bigger/higher res screen, and not too much money. I'll use the desktop for anything heavy-duty."

I'm not a big fan of the CULV processors, I have to say. I think you should try one out before buying. I was given a Toshiba Portege R500 at work a while back. It's 2lbs, has a 12" 1280x800 transflective screen, has a DVDRW drive and is, on paper, superior to a Dell Mini 12 in every way. Having said this, I find myself preferring the Mini 12 because it's silent, almost as light, and not too much slower for most things.

The Core Duo 1.2GHZ CULV CPU in the R500 is much slower than the standard Core Duo CPU and it throws enough heat that the laptop fan has to run constantly. The Atom, for my purposes, seems fast enough. In fact, the Dell Mini 12 is great except for the awful GMA500 video.

A 1.6GHz Atom with a GMA950 (like my HP Mini 1116NR that I picked up for $189CDN at Future Shop) seems faster to me than the R500 for many things.

Sure. the R500 might run VMWare better than the Atom-based system, but that's not what these netbooks are for. And besides, the R500 with the ULV CPU still runs VMWare like a dog.

For me, I'd rather a nice, fast desktop PC and a netbook. In fact, that's what I've done. At home, I sold my MacBook Pro and replaced it with a desktop and the HP Mini.

Never having tried any of the Dell mini's, my wife's AAO150 turned out to be a pleasant surprise. It has totally replaced its 15.4" Acer predecessor that is dying, BSOD every couple of days. The AAO was on sale @ FutureShop for $279 and came with a 1.66, 6cel instead of what was on the side of the box. Also it has an ENGLISH keyboard believe it or not.
In Canada we are being tortured with bi-lingual keyboards on every laptop and that has put me off buying one for myself. Next week I will be in LA and will look for a bargain.

I tried a Gateway 11.6 and it felt great but the bi-lingual keyboard just bites ..

ive a panasonic R3 since years (since like 2004)
its a 10 inches screen, and rather quick cpu at the time (pentium-m 1.1Ghz ULW)
i'd never go back

i like the size, weight, and its faster than atoms still.

when I need a large screen I use my desktop pc.

Actually I believe the problem is that people use laptops as their desktop pc and expect netbooks to replace them.

Not quite! netbooks and the like are *real* portable computers. You can take em anywhere and do what you want to do. But if you're at home why not using the comfortable 22 inches on a big fast pc?
Also happen to have both on when I just wanna walk around with the small laptop.